The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. While the raw total is only 9-6 Delete, some of the Keep commentors sort of got caught up in the user-request issue and not the notability issue. Those that did suggest Keep on notabily mostly did not do so very strongly. Herostratus 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Duell[edit]

I originally speedy deleted this article because the apparent article subject requested deletion. From the talk page:

This page, supposedly about me but with my name misspelled, first came to my attention because it includes a mention of one of my sons (name misspelled also). Besides being a violation of his and my privacy, and besides being rife with inaccuracies, the article is about someone who is not a public or notable figure in any way. While I once chaired a nonprofit board, I have not done so since 1984, and there are thousands of people in the US who have also chaired a board. I request that the page be removed. --E. M. Deull 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not quite sure what to do at that point. I probably should have gotten some advice about how to handle requests for deletion from article subjects, but I just went ahead and deleted it. However the article creator, Smeelgova, requested a more above-board deletion process, which I will happily oblige. There are probably policies about this, but I do not know them. Therefore, I abstain, and request that users experienced in this kind of situation help determine what to do. Thank you. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't think we should pull content just because the subject asks us to - that wouldn't be acceptable behaviour for an encyclopaedia, and I don't have much truck with arguments about privacy. On the other hand if there are inaccuracies in the piece they should be sorted. Keep and clean up as necessary. BTLizard 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Notable subjects requesting deletion of their articles isn't a reason to delete them (otherwise Angela Beesley would have gone 3 or 4 times). There is a question about notability though and if it is kept it would need moving to the correctly spelt title. I'm also not sure that this isn't a subtle attack page - it seems to raise questions about the use of his legal firm by the NGO (undue weight afforded this area considering the size of the article?). Yomangani^talk 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Chairman of the board of an NGO is not generally a notable position; in a non-profit, this position may not even be particularly important in practice (even if it is important legally). I also agree with Yomangani's suspicions about a possible attack. bikeable (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Privacy issues are not relevent, as any unsourced content should be expunged, and any sourced content isn't private. That said, still looks like delete per failing WP:BIO, but I'll reconsider if anyone really wants to argue it. WilyD 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am in agreement with user BTLizard's statement above. Inaccuracies should be cleaned up and corrected, but the article itself should be retained. To this point all material was compiled from other readily available sources in the media at any rate, so the privacy issue should be taken up with said historical references.Smeelgova 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although bios shouldn't be deleted just because the subject asks for it to be removed, in this case, that isn'r relevant as the article fails WP:BIO. Furthermore, it does appear to be a subtle attack page as others have pointed out. Wikipedia is not a forum for venting disputes. -- Whpq 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tried to throw it on the wall, and none of it sticks.-Kmaguir1 08:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The misspelling seems to have been done in good faith, as the National Labor Relations Board made the same error. Allegations of bring "rife with inaccuracies" were unspecific. Errors can be corrected and are not a basis for deletion. Ellis Deull was notable enough to be mentioned in two published articles about the Hunger Project: Giambalvo, Carol (January, 1988). "The Hunger Project: Inside out". Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) Journal. Vol. 8, No. 1; and Gordon, Suzanne (December 1, 1978). "Let them eat est". Mother Jones. p. 40ff. Kat'n'Yarn 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Nothing in the article demonstrates notability, though I could imagine that notability might be there: if you believe you have rewritten to demonstrate notability, let me know, my vote might change. If it is to be kept, move it to the correct spelling. And it does currently read like an attack piece: if it is to be retained, it will need a substantial rewrite. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone, anyone please explain what the "attack" is? Kat'n'Yarn 03:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep If this gets merged into The Hunger Project and deleted because he's not noteable, I wouldn't have any serious problem with that. However, I don't think that it can possibly be deleted because it's an "invasion of privacy." If someone is the chairman of the board of an organization, it's certainly not an invasion of privacy to say that he's the chairman of the board of an organization. --Descendall 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine/correct as required. I detect no privacy breach in the current article. As for notoriety/notability, we can revisit the issue if WP:BIO ever achieves a consensus on the concept. -- Pedant17 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO and based on that, as well as other factors, I am of the view that this article is of a nn. individual. --Wisden17 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wisd.--Peta 10:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Decision? This is well-past the five-day discussion period. Is anyone going to make a decision on it? Kat'n'Yarn 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I would say his notability is borderline but The Hunger Project is notable and being the first president does mean something. Agne 16:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.